KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — NATO says that two service members have been killed in separate attacks in southern Afghanistan, while two others have died of non-battle injuries.

The coalition said in statements that one service member was killed by an improvised explosive device Wednesday and another by a similar weapon on Tuesday....

So far this month, 31 coalition members have died in Afghanistan, bringing the year's toll to 122."

Barack Obama was their Commander-in-Chief.

Fuck him.

And then Rabel came right back and said:

That's his job right there.

Fuck him and fuck his Goddamn comedy act.

Now, that's a very harsh way to talk about Obama, but it's the way people talked about George Bush all the time. Remember how Bush was savaged for displaying a capacity for enjoying himself when Americans were fighting and dying?

That much criticized performance occurred in 2002. A year later, after he received news of war deaths while golfing, Bush gave up golf:

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf... I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong message."

Does a slow jam with Jimmy Fallon send the wrong message? Or do we not think about the mom whose son may have recently died anymore? (Obama has no Cindy Sheehandogginghounding him bothering him... at least not that we see in the news.)

It's like that was a really hard question — why is it that he can't just enjoy his waffle... and his multiple vacations and his golf and his rock concerts in the White House and his slow jam with Jimmy Fallon?

The answer is: Because you have a job. You applied for it. We hired you. Make us believe you're doing it.

There's a lot of mythology out there still today about Obama and his strengths and how there hasn't been any fallout from the dismal record that he has amassed. None of this is true. They're in trouble. They're in deep trouble. You basically have David Plouffe, who's the president, you got Axelrod who's the chief of staff and Obama's out playing golf. Obama... Not quite. Obama's out doing the fundraising, but David Plouffe is the acting president, Axelrod's chief adviser, and Obama's out playing golf. Obama basically has a nine a.m. to four p.m. day. It's these other guys that are formulating policy, doing all this other stuff. He knows what's going on, don't misunderstand, and he's guiding and influencing it.

I'm not saying Obama's disengaged, doesn't know what's going on and he's a puppet. Don't misunderstand. Not saying that at all. But he's not known as a hard worker. He's not known as somebody who gets in there early and stays late....

While David Plouffe is the president, Axelrod's the chief of staff, Obama's out raising money. After his campaign stop in North Carolina today, he's going on his comedy tour. He'll be appearing on the Jimmy Fallon show and then with Jimmy Kimmel before being roasted at the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend....

Plouffe is the acting President?! That sounded outlandish. But look around. Obama performs 5 minutes of a musically sexualized speech about students and... it's wearing down my sense of the outlandish.

Its because O is a self centered campaigner, and W is a decent human being comfortable in his own skin. This was one of his weaknesses as a politician since he rarely felt he had to answer his critics and sell his policies. Many including you have noted this, but it left the field wide open to the chimpymchitler crowd and the MSM to set the narrative.

He's a narcissist who doesn't like to work very hard. He's never had a real job, one where getting fired was an actual possibility. He's been able to bully and threaten (although others to that for him as well).

And forever he's been told he's great, doing next to nothing, so why stop now?

I believe that Barry is clearly in way over his head. Too much of the Presidency involves things he does not want to do.

The dinosaur media is covering up and/or advocating for his reelection. They need to file the paper work to indicate payment in kind for the political campaign work. It seems way to obvious to be denied.

While David Plouffe is the president, Axelrod's the chief of staff, Obama's out raising money. After his campaign stop in North Carolina today, he's going on his comedy tour. He'll be appearing on the Jimmy Fallon show and then with Jimmy Kimmel before being roasted at the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend....

Looks like Rush missed some of the details. Didn't Obama show up in Colorado that same day on his college campus tour?

All this and yet Obama says his campaign doesn't officially launch until May 5. Is he refunding the government for what are obviously campaign trips?

BTW, anyone else catch the stories finally trickling out about Obama's arrogance? He told people he could to any job in his campaign but chooses not to, that he's a better speechwriter than anyone, but he chooses to have speechwriters. From New York magazine:

"The president’s friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett sometimes pointed out that not only had he never managed an operation, he’d never really had a nine-to-five job in his life. Obama didn’t know what he didn’t know, yet his self-confidence was so stratospheric that once, in the context of thinking about Emanuel’s replacement, he remarked in all seriousness, “You know, I’d make a good chief of staff.”"

Which, if yesterdays oral is any guide, the Obama adm is doggedly trying to render it meaningless.

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law merely requires that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and leaves enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally and who’s not,” he said....

The commenters today seem to be judging Obama as if he is a President. But Obama and his Party know that he is the temporary ruler over our transition from a Constitutional Republic to a conquered Province. The Congress and the SCOTUS must obey the Ruler Obama or he will simply issue decrees out of the EPA, the TSA, and the FDA.

As for a so called war in Afghanistan, that occupation has been a bad political joke using American military lives as pawns for 8 years now. Withdrawing from that place is commonsense 8 years too late.

The necessary war is for the Congress and the SCOTUS to step up and and resist Obama's silent coup.

I wonder if Rabel had similar comments for Bush when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?

Obama's "performance" on Fallon was not comedy, it was merely a campaign speech built into a song. He knew his audience of college students would be in favor of his message about not allowing student loan interest rates to double. He spoke his point, letting others sing about it, and he looked stiff and uncomfortable doing so. That's all that happened. Obama has never been, nor will he ever be, "cool."

Let's stop attacking Obama because he is supposedly "cool" or "lazy." Those things don't matter - unless you are racist - and they aren't even demonstrably true. The only thing that matters, and is undeniable, is that Obama has been an ineffective President and should not be reelected. (Whether he is cool enough or works hard enough is irrelevant at this point.)

Let me add one item to the list of things Barry has gotten a pass on while Bush did not.

Remember the rancorous accusations about a lack of idealogical diversity in the Bush admin? All his top people were rabid right-wingers, if the NYT and others were to be believed. Where was the BALANCE? WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE...PLEASE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?

So Barry practically fills his staff and cabinet with communists; at least like-minded people who were weaned on the fantastic exploits of the Weathermen, Che Guavara and other Socialist Justice League superheroes.

The response from the supposedly-adversarial press? Nary a word. Crickets.

Does anyone think there is one scintilla of conservative thought in the WH?

I swear, NASCAR drivers don't turn as hard left as the Obama admin does.

And he nominated czars, for chrissakes. There should be no 'czars' in a democratic, constitutional republic. Yeah, the practice probably predates Obama, but I hate it anyways. The term implies some sort of repressive, unbridled authority with no oversight and accountability to no one. Note that much of the damage in this country, in terms of energy, industrial, and economic policy, have been decreed by these 'czars'. End the reign of the 'czars'.

"... I wonder if Rabel had similar comments for Bush when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?..."

Dunno but your side certainly did. Perhaps Rabel is being fair and balanced showing that Obama is just as clueless and insensitive as Bush.

I apologize for the vulgarity, which I generally try to avoid. But it was late and I had been watching the American troops sacrifice their lives on the Military Channel, so the President's belittling of his office and the attendant harm that does to the country and those who serve hit a nerve.

This might be a good time to post a link to an interesting assessment of Obama's character from April 2007.

It comes from an anti-Zionist Jewish writer and is interesting in two ways.

One, it matches my own read on Obama, the man, and self-validation in always interesting.

Two, I've never seen it before. Which is interesting when you consider that the writer is generally sympathetic to Obama and it could have been used against him by people on the right. Maybe I just missed it.

“I apologize for the vulgarity, which I generally try to avoid. But it was late and I had been watching the American troops sacrifice their lives on the Military Channel, so the President's belittling of his office and the attendant harm that does to the country and those who serve hit a nerve.”

So do have a similar position towards Bush regarding his joke about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?

That was a primary reason for sending those troops over there to fight and die. To find those WMDs that were supposedly a threat to us.

I wonder if Rabel had similar comments for Bush when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?

Why would he?

The Bush administration was right about WMD in Iraq, lefty delusions to the contrary.

But "the search" was self-deprecating humor. Have we ever seen that sort of humility from Obama?

But, please: continue repeating disproven lefty canards. They give constant reminders about the utter lack of seriousness from your side of the political spectrum.

Yes it does, but you have to wonder why he would do it. I'm thinking that Obama has received the "Pat Caddell" moment that Jimmy Carter received about 4 days before the 1980 election (shorthand version: "It's over"), and he is trying things in desperation. Yes, this far out from the election date. Some analysis of the fundamentals in the re-election effort is revealing that it ain't gonna happen and Obama is in denial and is making some really bad, desperate choices.

Good one chick. But let me suggest that fiend/harro/freder is the word game in the newspaper you always ignore while working the crossword or doing the sudoku. Until out of sheer boredom you try it again only to be reminded why you ignored it in the first place.

The “imminent threat” of attack from WMDs was the major sell by the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq which turned out to be false.

And if you cannot recognize what national interests were involved with the conflicts in Serbia and Libya, then I suggest you read up on those conflicts rather than laugh about the service of our armed forces.

Also, my question to you still stands, was Bush in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?

"... And if you cannot recognize what national interests were involved with the conflicts in Serbia and Libya, then I suggest you read up on those conflicts rather than laugh about the service of our armed forces..."

Oh I have read about then 36, quite extensively in fact and the civil wars in Serbia and Libya were not a national security risk. Milosevic wasn't a threat to us, Ghadaffi wasn't a threat to us. You had two countries engaged in a civil war.

I was laughing at you, not our armed forces, you, who think that we had a national interest in those places but not Rwanda, or Sudan or Syria. Funny how regime change of ruthless dictators is quite a partisan matter for you.

If that was the prez, or anyone, being sexy, then I've set my standards way too high.

Or if there was something in there about making students sexy, I didn't find it.

So the president, like others before, and like presidential candidate Mitt Romney, appeared on a late night show. That means he's not working the rest of the time?

And Rabel, what would you have him do, 24 hours a day, to show what you regard as proper respect for our war casualties?

So POTUS has the traditional entertainments at the White House--including the White House Correspondent's dinner, which was vilified here.

I'm glad the President spoke out about the proposal to raise student loan interest rates. I wish he'd had time to talk about the proposal to cut back on the school lunch program too. And a host of other things.

But the fact is, here, nothing POTUS does will be treated with legitimacy.

“Oh I have read about then 36, quite extensively in fact and the civil wars in Serbia and Libya were not a national security risk. Milosevic wasn't a threat to us, Ghadaffi wasn't a threat to us. You had two countries engaged in a civil war.”

You need to read up on the concept of national interests.

“I was laughing at you, not our armed forces, you, who think that we had a national interest in those places but not Rwanda, or Sudan or Syria. Funny how regime change of ruthless dictators is quite a partisan matter for you.”

Again, each situation is unique with its own set of circumstances. You simply cannot use a cookie cutter approach to every international situation. Why didn’t we take out Stalin and Mao who were both ruthless dictators and who each killed millions?

Also, still waiting for an answer to the question, was Bush in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?

Then what to you think about his joke regarding not finding WMDs and his misleading us into the war with Iraq? Do you believe as Rabel that he belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who serve?

"So? The German threat of having the A-bomb turned out to be false too."

Not so. Only when the US bombed the existing German nuclear production works near Berlin at the end of the war did the threat end. Until then, work by the physicist Heisenberg continued, and he was outspoken about it through 1942.

1) President Bush never mentioned an imminent attack, with WMD or without. He said we needed to resolve the problem before an attack became imminent.

2) There are 4 simple, easy, and obvious ways that there was WMD in Iraq, and yet we did not find it after the invasion:a) it was trucked out b) it was released in the desert (WMD degrades rapidly in heat/sunlight)c) it was buried in the desert (all the WMD we know he had at the end of Gulf War I would fit in a 2-car garage...hidden in an area the size of CA, would you find it in your lifetime?)d) it was taken away by regime insiders to use on US troops in IEDs

3) WMD was used on US troops in IED attacks. It is easily found with a Google search.

You have been proven wrong years ago, but childishly repeat falsehoods.

Either you believe transparent, obvious liars, or you knowingly repeat lies.

Neither reflects well on you.

Whether or not you served, you betray those who protect the nation and keep us free.

Well aware of them. The argument for Serbia and Libya was to prevent genocide. There is certainly a moral interest there but not a national one.

"..Why didn’t we take out Stalin and Mao who were both ruthless dictators and who each killed millions?..."

Good question, perhaps because we were sick of war? Or the Soviets and Chinese had pretty powerful armies? Then again you claimed civilian massacres were national interests. I on the other hand thing the military should be deployed when we are under attack or threat of attack.

"... Also, still waiting for an answer to the question, was Bush in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?.."

Sure he was. You had to be to think those people could build something resembling a functioning democracy. I agreed with the French, we should have removed sanctions and made a deal with him. Since Saddam was a secular dictator he could have been a valuable ally against jihadists.

“1) President Bush never mentioned an imminent attack, with WMD or without. He said we needed to resolve the problem before an attack became imminent.”

Go back and review his speeches at the time.

“ 2) There are 4 simple, easy, and obvious ways that there was WMD in Iraq, and yet we did not find it after the invasion:a) it was trucked outb) it was released in the desert (WMD degrades rapidly in heat/sunlight)c) it was buried in the desert (all the WMD we know he had at the end of Gulf War I would fit in a 2-car garage...hidden in an area the size of CA, would you find it in your lifetime?)d) it was taken away by regime insiders to use on US troops in IEDs”

You and Mick should get together and share stories with each other.

“3) WMD was used on US troops in IED attacks. It is easily found with a Google search.”

Nothing was found on the scale which the Bush Administration postulated in the effort to get the nation into war.

fiend wants us to operate on the Lefty propaganda Dubya lied. This, of course, has always been a lie.

The idea Saddam had WMDs - and he did, of course - was held as Gospel all over the world. Dubya trusted his intel establishment to give him accurate info, so the intel people screwed up.

fiend is doing his usual Uncle Saul act, trying to get some kind of admission to the usual Lefty lies.

And, yes, I'm proud to say I voted for Dubya.

Then what to you think about his joke regarding not finding WMDs and his misleading us into the war with Iraq? Do you believe as Rabel that he belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who serve?

Spare me the faux outrage. As Mr Churchill noted, we have all had our laugh among the skulls and a little self-deprecation is an admirable trait in a good leader - which certainly explains why Zero is so bad. More to the point, I'm willing to bet Dubya met with more servicemen's families than Zero has.

And, as far as I can see, Rabel said nothing of the kind of Dubya.

fiend is taking a break from the "office" to see how far his sophistry will stretch today.

“Well aware of them. The argument for Serbia and Libya was to prevent genocide. There is certainly a moral interest there but not a national one.”

You don’t believe the prevention of genocide is not in the national interest of the U.S.? Are you an American?

“Good question, perhaps because we were sick of war? Or the Soviets and Chinese had pretty powerful armies? Then again you claimed civilian massacres were national interests. I on the other hand thing the military should be deployed when we are under attack or threat of attack.”

The military situation is one part of the answer. You’re starting to think now.

“Sure he was. You had to be to think those people could build something resembling a functioning democracy. I agreed with the French, we should have removed sanctions and made a deal with him. Since Saddam was a secular dictator he could have been a valuable ally against jihadists.”

So you agree Bush was clueless about the Iraq war and now you bash Obama. Interesting.

Nothing was found on the scale which the Bush Administration postulated in the effort to get the nation into war.

How much of an iceberg shows above the water?

If a man is accused of stealing $3 Billion of marked bills, and is later found with ten of those marked bills and no explanation, will he be charged for the theft of $10, or $3 billion?

If a person is murdered by 300 stab wounds, and 298 are judged to be able to cause death, and a second individual is found in position of a knife with the victim's blood, do you think it would make much sense to claim he only made the 2 non-fatal stabs, but someone else did the rest?

WMD was found in Iraq. You can say it.

No, wait, of course you can't. You don't care one fig about the truth.

Please review the reasons we invaded Iraq. Please list:

1) The specified volume of WMD that had to be found to justify the invasion.

“1) President Bush never mentioned an imminent attack, with WMD or without. He said we needed to resolve the problem before an attack became imminent.”

Go back and review his speeches at the time.

No, Nathan is right. This is why there was such a debate over the employment of "preventative war." If the claim had been that an attack was imminent, we would never have debated that issue.

Nothing was found on the scale which the Bush Administration postulated in the effort to get the nation into war.

True. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush was misled (and wrong), as was most of Congress, as was pretty much every intelligence agency in the world. The mistake was not an unreasonable one to make.

If a man is accused of stealing $3 Billion of marked bills, and is later found with ten of those marked bills and no explanation, will he be charged for the theft of $10, or $3 billion?

If a person is murdered by 300 stab wounds, and 298 are judged to be able to cause death, and a second individual is found in position of a knife with the victim's blood, do you think it would make much sense to claim he only made the 2 non-fatal stabs, but someone else did the rest?

WMD was found in Iraq. You can say it.”

Some deteriorating artillery shells with Mustard gas from the 1980s. You know, the time period when we supported Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran.

Nothing was found to justify the invasion as claimed by the administration.

"... You don’t believe the prevention of genocide is not in the national interest of the U.S.? Are you an American?.."

Redblooded and raised on apple pie. Again, I said its a moral interest not a national one. If we want to help stop civilian massacres with sanctions, diplomacy, candlelight vigils fine. But the US military should not be involved.

"...The military situation is one part of the answer. You’re starting to think now..."

Hardly. My consistent position is to use military force when we are attacked or under threat of attack. Ghadaffi killing rebels in his own country doesn't count.

"..So you agree Bush was clueless about the Iraq war and now you bash Obama. Interesting..."

I think Obama is clueless about a whole raft of things to be bashed for.

“The simple fact of the matter is that Bush was misled (and wrong), as was most of Congress, as was pretty much every intelligence agency in the world. The mistake was not an unreasonable one to make.”

“If it is, then we are rather inconsistent in protecting our national interest.”

Blue,

Don’t you believe the prevention of genocide is in the national interest of the U.S.?

It can be. Like you, I tend to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. I can see the case for Serbia, because it's on Europe's backside and we don't want to see that kind of instability there. I can see the case for Libya-- oil does matter. Can you see the case for Iraq?

“Redblooded and raised on apple pie. Again, I said its a moral interest not a national one. If we want to help stop civilian massacres with sanctions, diplomacy, candlelight vigils fine. But the US military should not be involved.”

So you’re OK if the Arab nations wipe out Israel. We shouldn’t get involved militarily, is that correct?

“Hardly. My consistent position is to use military force when we are attacked or under threat of attack. Ghadaffi killing rebels in his own country doesn't count.”

I don't like when Presidents appear in entertainment, because it's impossible not to seem frivolous or foolish, but some people like it, I suppose. Palin was cute on SNL but if it was a joke or not, they made a thing/joke about how actually performing that rap song was too undignified. And she was just running for VP, not actually in office, and not President. It's a risky thing. I was much younger when Clinton played his Sax on television, and since I was younger my sense of how undignified that was, was even greater. Just say no, if you're the President, just say no.

Since I personally detest "roasts" I can't imagine why a President would ever participate in one of them, or in the correspondent's dinner, which seems just as bad. I suppose it proves you're a good sport, but I just hate the things.

Now... golfing...

I depends, I suppose. Powerful, ambitious, people seem to commonly have quite strict habits of participating in some sort of sport. Bush ran regularly, I think. Palin complained of being kept from running, which would have allowed her to think and process her debate cram sessions. I don't exercise (I know I should) but it does seem that people who work very very hard, also need those regular breaks.

Golf seems a bit more casual, but I figure that business happens and better decisions are made. So I'm reluctant to criticize too much, even during war time.

And speaking of *that*... I never cared much for the complaint that we, as a nation, weren't dour enough, that Bush was wrong to tell us to go shopping, that we were supposed to suffer properly in order to make it all okay, or something. But being dour here really doesn't help someone who is over there, does it?

OTOH, Obama does seem to have elaborate and frequent to-do's at the White House and the world travel is unprecedented. Bush dropped unexpectedly and quietly into Kabul; Obama took over two huge hotels for weeks and had them build a two mile tunnel to keep him safe from snipers in Mumbai. (Or wherever that was... India!) And that's not even starting on the trips Michelle takes without him.

“It can be. Like you, I tend to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. I can see the case for Serbia, because it's on Europe's backside and we don't want to see that kind of instability there. I can see the case for Libya-- oil does matter. Can you see the case for Iraq?”

Regarding Iraq, we supported Saddam for many years even while he used gas against his own people. The reasons Bush called for the war with Iraq were WMD and a link with al-Qaeda.

Saddam claimed he didn’t have WMDs, which turned out to be true. We claimed he had them. So again, why was Bush misled as you claim?

You cannot possibly be this obtuse. Saddam deliberately created the impression that he was hiding WMDs. Even members of his inner circle thought he had them. This is not some novel conspiracy theory I'm trotting out, and if you're at all intellectually honest you'll acknowledge this.

Regarding Iraq, we supported Saddam for many years even while he used gas against his own people.What difference does that make? We stopped supporting him more than a decade before war. Besides, we were getting pretty friendly with Gaddafi right up until the end.

The reasons Bush called for the war with Iraq were WMD and a link with al-Qaeda.

And why were WMD and al-Qaeda considered a threat there? Would Bush have attacked if the same allegations arose about Paraguay? No. It's quite a serious matter when we're talking about aggressive dictator with potential WMDs in the most oil-rich region of the world.

Since Wormtongue can't tell the truth even when given multiple chances to, here is the truth:

Justification for invading Iraq:

Remove a regime that: 1) developed and used weapons of mass destruction2) harbored and supported terrorists3) committed outrageous human rights abuses4) and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world

Which of those do you deny, Wormtongue?

For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations"

Was Iraq complying with UNSCR 678 and 687, Wormtongue?

If not, then the amount of WMD found in Iraq afterward is immaterial.

You can't tell the truth, because the truth doesn't support your agenda.

Wormtongue,Although we did not invade Iraq due to connections with al Qaeda (as shown), I suppose you are now going to repeat the falsehood that al Qaeda and Saddam had no connections and would never work together due to religious differences?

“You cannot possibly be this obtuse. Saddam deliberately created the impression that he was hiding WMDs. Even members of his inner circle thought he had them. This is not some novel conspiracy theory I'm trotting out, and if you're at all intellectually honest you'll acknowledge this.”

Have you read the reports issued by the UN weapon inspectors prior to the invasion?

“What difference does that make? We stopped supporting him more than a decade before war.”

It makes a difference because that is not the reason we went to war. If 9/11 didn’t occur, Bush would never have been able to make a case for us to go to war with Iraq based on our past relationship.

“And why were WMD and al-Qaeda considered a threat there?

There was no threat from Iraq. Nothing in Iraq changed from what existed there before 9/11. What changed was now there was some supposed link that was tied into the attack – Bush’s accusation. That, coupled with the anger and fear from the attacks helped Bush make his case. People wanted blood for 9/11.

As far as Saddam having WMDs, I suggest you review Bush’s exit interviews.

I suggest fiend take a look at what was actually found (thousands of chemical rounds - and he damned well knows it, BTW) and quit wasting everybody's time with nonsense that was proven to be lies a couple of years ago

Regarding Dubya’s joke about not finding WMDs, I don’t think it was self-deprecation. I think he was letting us all know that he didn’t believe his own BS.

I could care less what fiend thinks. Dubya has shown a Hell of a lot more sensitivity to the men and women under his command than some narcisstic moron who thinks he's being cute calling the Marines' medics, "Corpsemen".

Remove a regime that: 1) developed and used weapons of mass destruction 2) harbored and supported terrorists 3) committed outrageous human rights abuses 4) and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world"

Your leaving off Bush’s claim that we could not contain Saddam after 9/11 and that his WMDs would directly threaten us. That’s how he got us into a war without a UN resolution calling for an invasion. Resolution 1441 did not authorize an invasion.

Your leaving off Bush’s claim that we could not contain Saddam after 9/11 and that his WMDs would directly threaten us. That’s how he got us into a war without a UN resolution calling for an invasion. Resolution 1441 did not authorize an invasion.

I'm not leaving anything off.

This assertion of yours has no basis in reality. Quit repeating falsehoods

What did Resolution 1441 authorize, exactly?

The reasons for invasion are spelled out.

Why can't you face up to it?

Why did you leave out the part that the NYT admitted it spreads lies in service of getting Democrats elected?

Why did you leave out the part that Obama admitted he will sell out the nation the first change he gets?

You, personally, are morally bankrupt. You repeat the transparent lies of those who do not have the nation's best interests at heart, and who actively work to reduce liberty and add more power to progressive, self-styled elite.

“Although we did not invade Iraq due to connections with al Qaeda (as shown), I suppose you are now going to repeat the falsehood that al Qaeda and Saddam had no connections and would never work together due to religious differences?”

Supposed connections was part of the pitch. As far as al Qaeda and Saddam having no connections and not working together being a falsehood, I guess in your mind that’s true.

“I suggest fiend take a look at what was actually found (thousands of chemical rounds - and he damned well knows it, BTW) and quit wasting everybody's time with nonsense that was proven to be lies a couple of years ago.

Listen to Bush’s own words in his exit interviews. Or is he not responsible for those as well? What is the man responsible for?

“I could care less what fiend thinks. Dubya has shown a Hell of a lot more sensitivity to the men and women under his command than some narcisstic moron who thinks he's being cute calling the Marines' medics, "Corpsemen"”

That’s why Bush authorized the use of torture, right? He cared so much for the men and women under his command.

President Bush never said that there was an imminent threat of WMD. Here are his exact words in his SOTU speech in 2003:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

And no, finding WMD was NOT one of the reasons for going into Iraq. As far as WMD was concerned, we wanted Saddam to verify that he no longer had them (because we knew he did in fact have them when he used them against the Kurds). He didn't comply and kicked the UN inspectors out of the country, instead. The onus was on Hussein to verify they weren't there, not for us prove they were there.

Try again. We're none of us any better than the info we have, but when Dictator Zero decides that he can talk the Tahleebahn into being nice because he thinks he's so brilliant and so cool and so charming, he's responsible.

When his hand-picked man, McChrystal, hands him a troop list for the surge Zero ordered and Zero takes it upon himself to cut it in half because he knows better than a professional military man, he's responsible.

And when Little Zero decides to announce a pullout date from A-stan against everybody's advice, yeah, he's responsible.

That’s why Bush authorized the use of torture, right? He cared so much for the men and women under his command.

It wasn't torture until the Lefties called it that because they needed something with which to castigate him. And it wasn't torture when Pelosi Galore and half the Demos in Congress signed off on it when they thought their asses were in danger.

But, yes, fiend finally gets it (God, how long did that take?). Dubya ordered the waterboarding because it would save the lives of American servicepeople in the field and because it would save the lives of American citizens at home.

Somebody like fiend should be really embarrassed to have to get up here and spout all these lies that have been disproved so often and for so long. But that's what it takes to be a Lefty.

"Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you crticize Romney for wanting to bomb Iran to prevent them from getting nukes?"

First, answer the question about Iran attacking Israel. Should we intervene militarily if that happens?

Secondly, I’m against Romney who seems to want to use military force without exhausting the other options.

“Since Iran also has nukes I'm confident they can defend themselves.”

Who has definitively claimed that Iran has nukes?

“Nope. But when I read the Congressional authorization it was one of many reasons. Check it out sometime.”

I’m aware of the attacks on our aircraft since I’ve flown missions in Operation Southern Watch. But again, that wasn’t the main reason for the invasion of Iraq.

“Threatened by who? I recall one of the big liberal outcries over the wars was that Saddam was our buddy. Remember those pictures of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands?

You stated if Saddam had taken out Saudi Arabia, it might have done a whole lot of house cleaning of al qaeda. It would have also threatened oil supplies.

As far as Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, that’s one reason that we couldn't justify our invasion of Iraq simply on a humanitarian issue. We supported him while he used gas on people.

“Was al qaeda even around in 1991? And if so wouldn't they gave gone after Saddam for desecrating the holy land?”

Al-Qadea was founded by bin Laden sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. I don’t know if they would have gone after Saddam if he invaded. Perhaps, since they were angry with us for desecration their holy land.

Re prevention of genocide: " Again, I said its a moral interest not a national one. If we want to help stop civilian massacres with sanctions, diplomacy, candlelight vigils fine. But the US military should not be involved. "

Reminds me of calls for US involvement in Burma; demands that we "do something" to stop the killing in Burma without doing anything that would actually stop the killing in Burma.

Because force is icky.

But! Hope is not lost. Moral virtue can be gotten without the icky stuff that actually works by "doing something" to prove that we're good people.

Like sanctions.

Or diplomacy.

Or candle-light vigils.

Or, we could just go Ghandi's route, as we did in Burma, and just wait until the government has killed enough of the people they're set on killing to get either tired of it, or done with it.

Or, win/win, we can do both at the same time... rend some garments and wail, and go with Ghandi's solution and just wait until there are no more people to kill.

And maybe we *ought* to. I'm not at all arguing that we, or anyone else, must intervene all over the place just to be sure that the right people die (ie, the people set on genocide and not the people group targeted for genocide), but let us please have some moral clarity over just what is going on.

rhhardin said...Obama is good on the war on terror, though, forgetting undermining it with pullout dates

=================I don't think so. I think even Republicans have move past the "We owe it to the noble Iraqis/Afghanis/Somalis/Syrians/Iranians to invade and spend trillions nation-building". For as long as it takes ..."Decades if need be - so our Heroes can advance womans rights, build roads and schools, and stop the Evildoers from hitting us again".

Right now, people understand we cannot afford eternal wars of Neocon nation-building. They wouldn't mind seeing Bush's "special friends" Maliki and Karzai hanging from lamp posts and the locals ripping open shipping pallets of bundled 100 dollar bills given to the dickheads by both Bush and Obama.

Roads built and bridges repaired in America, not Afghanistan. Females in Afghanistan can't afford to go to college - too bad. Focus on affordable college here. If the Evildoers return...go in with B-52s and dust their Jihadi asses again...we don't need occupying "hero troops" to Keep Us All 100% ZERO Tolerance Safe!

“Try again. We're none of us any better than the info we have, but when Dictator Zero decides that he can talk the Tahleebahn into being nice because he thinks he's so brilliant and so cool and so charming, he's responsible.”

So, is Obama misleading us?

“When his hand-picked man, McChrystal, hands him a troop list for the surge Zero ordered and Zero takes it upon himself to cut it in half because he knows better than a professional military man, he's responsible.”

He took recommendation from the Chief of Staff before making that decision.

“It wasn't torture until the Lefties called it that because they needed something with which to castigate him. And it wasn't torture when Pelosi Galore and half the Demos in Congress signed off on it when they thought their asses were in danger.”

I suggest you read up on the history of waterboarding.

“But, yes, fiend finally gets it (God, how long did that take?). Dubya ordered the waterboarding because it would save the lives of American servicepeople in the field and because it would save the lives of American citizens at home.”

Apparently, you also should read up on General Petraeus’ comments about torture. You obviously don’t understand how it can impact our troops, as well.

“Somebody like fiend should be really embarrassed to have to get up here and spout all these lies that have been disproved so often and for so long. But that's what it takes to be a Lefty.

I have no reason to lie. I’m not a politician pandering for your vote.

However, it is interesting reading comments of people as they twist themselves into pretzels to justify the actions of Bush.

The question of interrogation methods is *complicated* and everyone knows that.

But we do have to get intelligence, do we not? So the line has to be drawn somewhere.

As a pure leadership issue, I'd prefer that line to be drawn as clearly as possible. The worst possible thing is what many *many* anti-water-boarding people were publicly and loudly insisting upon, which was having a public policy of no-torture but a real policy of expecting the rank and file to fall on their swords if it meant saving lives.

That is entirely vile and profoundly anti-troop! It's a moral cess-pool masquerading as virtue. People wanted not to be *embarrassed* internationally, but if it meant finding a dirty-bomb or preventing some horrific event, they wanted, and publicly said so and argued so in national publications!, they wanted the person in the hot-seat to go ahead and pull out fingernails. They wanted to feel good about themselves AND be protected by better people than themselves, who would then have broken our laws.

caplight45 said...When things are going well, no wars, economy rolling and markets expanding a President can occasionally do something light-hearted like Bill Clinton playing the sax on a late night TV show.

But when things are in the tank it makes a president look insincere and frivolous=======================We are not psychologially geared to all don hair shirts and lap the boots of the Hero Soldiers and TSA people Who Keep Us All Safe indefinitely. When these wars of nation-building go on for decades and the Heroes die in dribs and drabs and we realize the Evildoers Who Hijacked the REligion of Peace are NOT being fought by TSA goons groping Granny - we get tired of being told we must all emotionally subordinate ourselves to Eternal War and the Heroes who fight it.

We get tired of hearing we "owe it" to the noble Afghani girls, the noble Iraqis, our noble Special Friends the Israelis, or how we have a duty to help the noble Congolese and the noble NORKs.

And the whole HOW DARE a President have a single moment of enjoyment when Heroes are suffering trying to save noble Muslims from themselves, when Dead Heroes are arriving at Dover!

WormtongueI'm not going to spoon feed you. Read up and then I'll be happy to discuss with you. You're not going to spoon feed because there is nothing there to spoon feed.

The irony meter pegged on you telling someone to look something up. You won't face up to the truth, even after it is spoon fed to you. None of your anti-Bush nonsense you've said in this thread is remotely true.

It is all liberal propaganda.

I've provided the facts. You spin. I've provided more facts, you moved the goalposts.

You are a no-integrity hack, repeating liberal falsehoods because you lack the capacity to recognize what is true and what is false. The only thing you can do is repeat liberal canards over and over and over and over and over.

Fact:We didn't invade Iraq due to the presence of WMD. We invaded Iraq for the reasons listed. Among those were Saddam's failure to cooperate with WMD inspectors. There were strong indications he wanted to maintain turnkey production capability of WMD, and had never demonstrated he destroyed the WMD we knew he had at the end of Gulf War 1.

He didn't comply with UNSC resolutions. Those promised serious repercussions. The world already imposed sanctions on Iraq, and he was abusing those to enrich himself and members of the UN. There was no other option left but to force compliance with the previous UNSCRs. Force compliance = invasion.

We found WMD in Iraq after invading. Not in mass amounts, but it didn't have to be. The presence was enough to prove he never intended compliance with any of the UNSCRs. And your "from the 80s" crap won't float here OR in a the toilet. It was consistent with materials that had been out of climate-controlled storage for less than 5 years.

Saddam had contact with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our invasion, helping Saddam deal with sub-groups of citizens. Documents have shown that they had discussions regarding closer activities in the future.

But that had nothing to do with the invasion.

Saddam was bankrolling terrorism, was harboring terrorists in his nation, and provided training locations for terrorists.

Saddam used WMD on his own people. Aside from those he used on his own people, he had rape rooms, fed people into woodchippers, used rape and threat of rape of key individual daughters to keep them in line, had mass graves of women and children he'd killed, and his sons tortured people.

Real torture, not "enhanced interrogation techniques".

You are morally bankrupt. I'm surprised you have the gall to spread such evil lies anywhere.

Try again. We're none of us any better than the info we have, but when Dictator Zero decides that he can talk the Tahleebahn into being nice because he thinks he's so brilliant and so cool and so charming, he's responsible.

So, is Obama misleading us?

As I said, he's a narcissitic moron.

Otherwise, I'll keep it short.

fiend can play the sophist as long as there are KosKidz to sit at a terminal using his account to post replies.

The "torture" thing was brought up only to have an issue against Dubya.

The pullout date is less the issue than Zero wanted to tell the whole world about it. That's what everyone found objectionable - and stupid.

People like fiend like to use the crutch of reading comprehension when somebody jams the truth down their throats. He and his friends (if he has any) should check it out themselves; I was talking about Zero shooting his mouth off.

Again, waterboarding has been praised as saving thousands of lives. fiend doesn't care about that. As for Petraeus' remarks, the general's a good man, but he feels he must follow the lead of the Administration here (witness the Marine discharged for posting his views on his Facebook page). There are plenty who disagree.

I'm just bringing up facts. fiend, and that's all the people using his account, are the ones twisting themselves.

Oh, so now a mis-reading of a General's comment cannot be questioned, huh?

It is so hard to tell when you think a military officer is worth listening to, and when you think it justified to run ads claiming a military officer is a traitor (betray-us). Even more fascinating when it is the same officer.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth at once.

In this case General Petraeus was not correctly looking at the long-term situation; he was only considering limited, short-term effects.

Because the US troops acting almost perfectly in showing respect to Islam never caused al Qaeda or the Taliban to fight honorably. And never gained us any room when a US troop made a mistake in treatment of a Muslim.

The problem is not the act of waterboarding. The problem is quislings who gave aid and comfort to the enemy by failing to investigate and widely disseminating false stories like the Koran flushing, yet downplaying stories of Muslims desecrating the Koran.

And you help them by credulously repeating the bs stories. Aren't you proud of how many US soldiers you've helped kill with your rhetorical support of the NYT, et al?

Fiend: Torture is broad term with many degrees of meaning. One definition even describes what you do here: torturenoun: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean.

We'd have to agree on the meaning the word first to have a meaningful discussion.

Let's change the subject to something more clearcut:

Do you condone killing without a trial? Is assassination ever an ethical act? Is it Constitutional?

He signed an executive order against it. Although, it is already illegal in accordance with the Constitution. Gitmo is not closing now due to actions taken by Congress.

That US citizen in Yemen was an enemy combatant. And before you go off about Obama targeting Americans, you should read up on the program that was put in place during the Bush Administration after the 9/11 attacks.

"In this case General Petraeus was not correctly looking at the long-term situation; he was only considering limited, short-term effects.

Because the US troops acting almost perfectly in showing respect to Islam never caused al Qaeda or the Taliban to fight honorably. And never gained us any room when a US troop made a mistake in treatment of a Muslim."

Is that what Petraeus was talking about? If so, I responded to the concept in my very first comment.

The reasons for limiting our own behavior are 1) our own sense of right or wrong, which is independent of our troops, 2) to maintain discipline, which will be destroyed more effectively by a lack of clarity than by specific rules governing interrogation, or 3) to protect against mistreatment of our soldiers in return.

I've addressed all three points, which Fiend ignores. Did Petraeus say something else?

Argue the first point, and people do. The second comes down in favor of having a clear and official policy and official regimentation of who, what, where, and when. The third, in relation to the recent conflicts in the middle east is absurd.

As I *said*... what are they doing to do to escalate the treatment of prisoners in retaliation? Use bad language while sawing off heads and genitals?

No restraint on our part ever resulted in our enemy fighting honorably or reduced atrocities.

That covers everything that involves danger to our troops.

And making our decisions based on the good opinion of people and nations that fell to fainting because we handled someone roughly while giving our enemy a pass, is no good opinion worth having or even desiring.

In fact, bowing to such nonsense reveals weakness and potential and could put our people in danger because we're seen to lack resolve.

So five hours(!) after my comment about the futility of playing jumble and/or wordy-gurdy with fiend/harro/freder and what do I find?

I respect you all and sincerely hope you're getting some value out of all of this, but what about the value of some other potential commenter who is just getting home from work about now, logs onto althouse, has something to ADD to the conversation, sees 100 odd fiend/harro/freder related comments and says to themselves I don't have the patience to wade through all of this.

Sorry but I miss miss the new input and fresh ideas of potential com enters turned away by thread hyjackers like fiend/harro/freder

Let me help you. Gen. Petraeus, a man who you know actually served in the military and commanded troops, stated torture is not only useless for gathering reliable intelligence but is detrimental to the security of American forces and the nation’s reputation.

"Lay it out. I want to hear it in your own words. If it's an important distinction from standard lexicography, especially."

He won't. Not gonna happen in this lifetime.

In any case, the UN is a joke where the worst human rights abusers sit in judgment and their definitions hold no weight or moral or even legal authority, so who cares?

The Geneva Conventions are reciprocal treaties between nations, not including any we are in conflict with now, who didn't sign them and don't follow them. They define every person we're fighting against now as illegal combatants with no rights, when it comes to that.

And holding to them simply to *hope* for reciprocal treatment for our soldiers or civilians is pissing in the ocean.

Saddam's uniformed armies were treated well and respectfully and released early on, free to return to their families and homes. Because we are decent people and our armies are the most professional in the world.

Actually I’m still waiting for Rabel to response that she is also upset with Bush for belittling his office and causing harm to the country and those who serve with his joke about searching for WMDs as she is with Obama.

Petraeus according to Fiend: "torture is not only useless for gathering reliable intelligence"

As described during the "hot" war, intelligence isn't acted on without verification, because people lie. This is no surprise. All reports are that the instances of water-boarding resulted in enormous amounts of reliable information.

"but is detrimental to the security of American forces"

In normal situations, yes, it would be. Not that very many people, particularly the press and the anti-war cohort seem to give a shit. I doubt to this day that anyone involved in the Koran-flushing fiasco has lost a moment of sleep over the people now dead because of it.

"and the nation’s reputation."

Me: "And making our decisions based on the good opinion of people and nations that fell to fainting because we handled someone roughly while giving our enemy a pass, is no good opinion worth having or even desiring."

Also me: "People wanted not to be *embarrassed* internationally, but if it meant finding a dirty-bomb or preventing some horrific event, they wanted, and publicly said so and argued so in national publications!, they wanted the person in the hot-seat to go ahead and pull out fingernails. They wanted to feel good about themselves AND be protected by better people than themselves, who would then have broken our laws."

You've refused to "discuss" the issue because I wouldn't look up Petraeus's words, and all along I've commented directly on the points that he made.

Which you refuse to respond to.

Not that I'm worried over it. I've at least made arguments and explained my opinions. Appealing to authority is usually lame, so no one is surprised.

You should bone up on the Constitution. The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are treaties. What does the Constitution state about treaties?

I don't see anyplace where the Constitution says it is superseded by a UN treaty and we did not define waterboarding as torture until the Left decided it was politically advantageous to do so. If we did, fiend would be here defending the Democrat caucus of the US Congress from charges it violated the VIII Amendment.

Hell, our Spec Ops guys are waterboarded.

You probably should also become familiar with the Army's Field Manual regarding interrogations of POWs

I'm sure fiend has read it cover to cover.

If this is the best the KosKidz can do to waste our time, they need to get a life. That particular war is over and the Lefties lost.

As we all know, the info we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saved a lot of lives and I don't see anybody wanting to let him go with an apology.

"Actually I’m still waiting for Rabel to response that she is also upset with Bush for belittling his office and causing harm to the country and those who serve with his joke about searching for WMDs as she is with Obama."

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Do you see that word “treaties”? The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are treaties.

Our Spec Ops guys are waterboarded in accordance with their training which they freely consent to.

In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war are a category of protected persons and as such are required to be affored a certain level of treatment, one of which is no torture.

Torture doesn’t just mean ripping out finger nails with pliers. Denying food and water, sleep and medical attention to make someone or a third party divulge information is torture.

As far as info we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that saved lives, the info we got about bin Laden’s courier which led to bin Laden's death was obtained without torture.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Do you see that word “treaties”? The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are treaties.

And I'll help him - again.

Where does it say any treaty supersedes the Constitution?

(yes, sweetheart, I looked it up before answering the first time)

It doesn't and until the Lefties needed a political axe to grind, it wasn't regarded as torture because, as I said earlier, if it had been, fiend would be defending Pelosi and Co against charges of violating the VIII Amendment.

PS It's cute fiend thinks he can hide behind Petraeus by saying, "I think the man has more credibility on the issue of torture and its adverse effects than you". Petraeus is bound to hew to the Administration line unless he wants to do to Zero what MacArthur did to FDR.

You are not making sense. The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are supreme laws of the land in accordance with Constitution. They are not superseding the Constitution.

"Sorry, that Amendment applies to American citizens, if it were torture, which it's not." The Amendments apply to all persons within US custody, wherever that may be. They are a restriction on government power, not a form of territorial jurisdiction. Supported by a history of case law, and U.S. Stats. 18USC 241, 242, and 243.

As to whether they were torture, submit yourself to hours of waterboarding and to having your nads connected to a battery.

Since we're going to violate the Constitution anyway, what I don't underdstand is why we use torture. It's notoriously unreliable.

why is it that any post about the latest way OBAMA has demeaned the office of the presidency ends up with a comment thread about bush ?he ain't the president anymore, folks. let's focus on the current one.

"Sorry, that Amendment applies to American citizens, if it were torture, which it's not." The Amendments apply to all persons within US custody, wherever that may be. They are a restriction on government power, not a form of territorial jurisdiction. Supported by a history of case law, and U.S. Stats. 18USC 241, 242, and 243.

As to whether they were torture, submit yourself to hours of waterboarding and to having your nads connected to a battery.

Since we're going to violate the Constitution anyway, what I don't underdstand is why we use torture. It's notoriously unreliable.

Actually, I think Bush was telling us all something with his joke. That he didn’t believe his own BS about WMDs in Iraq.

The same "BS" Democrats said back when Clinton was in office, mind you.

The “imminent threat” of attack from WMDs was the major sell by the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq which turned out to be false.

Oddly, Bush said that we couldn't wait for them to become an imminent threat. Said it quite publicly.

As far as Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, that’s one reason that we couldn't justify our invasion of Iraq simply on a humanitarian issue. We supported him while he used gas on people.

Yet, we gave him very few weapons (note that in both military actions against him, he used almost no American-made weapons against us). You know who DID give him weapons? The French. We gave him intel on Iranian troop positions. That's about it.

What threat of attack did Iraq pose to us?

More of one than Libya did. By a solid margin.

And if you cannot recognize what national interests were involved with the conflicts in Serbia and Libya, then I suggest you read up on those conflicts rather than laugh about the service of our armed forces.

There were no national interests. The only funny part is watching you twist yourself in a pretzel.

You don’t believe the prevention of genocide is not in the national interest of the U.S.? Are you an American?

Saddam killed plenty of people --- far more than in Libya. Clinton bent over backwards to have Rwanda NOT labeled as a genocide. Obama won't do shit to Syria and there is mass killing of innocents there.

el polacko said: he ain't the president anymore, folks. let's focus on the current one.

I dunno. I really do think the strategy of Obama running against the ghost of Bush will backfire the second time around, because reasonable people will conclude that Romney isn't Bush. I prefer to give people like Fiend more rope because he buys into that strategy. Just a gut feeling however.

“The same "BS" Democrats said back when Clinton was in office, mind you.”

You have to specify.

“Oddly, Bush said that we couldn't wait for them to become an imminent threat. Said it quite publicly.

See my response to heyboom.

“Yet, we gave him very few weapons (note that in both military actions against him, he used almost no American-made weapons against us). You know who DID give him weapons? The French. We gave him intel on Iranian troop positions. That's about it.”

It’s not about weapons that we provided him. It’s about our approval of his actions.

“More of one than Libya did. By a solid margin.”

What does Libya have to do with Iraq?

“There were no national interests. The only funny part is watching you twist yourself in a pretzel.”

Maybe you need to read up on the concept of national interests and treaty obligations as well.

“ Saddam killed plenty of people --- far more than in Libya. Clinton bent over backwards to have Rwanda NOT labeled as a genocide. Obama won't do shit to Syria and there is mass killing of innocents there.

Stalin killed millions.

As far as Syria, Russia is involved so that complicates things. We are working for a solution through the UN.

“I dunno. I really do think the strategy of Obama running against the ghost of Bush will backfire the second time around, because reasonable people will conclude that Romney isn't Bush. I prefer to give people like Fiend more rope because he buys into that strategy. Just a gut feeling however.”

We’re only talking about Bush because Ann made the comparison between Obama and Bush in her post.

Also, I’m still waiting for an answer to my initial question to Rabel.

Does he/she think Bush belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who served when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?